(Passed) Revised Judicial Protocol Act

Great Eurussia Sat Feb 22, 2014 3:28 pm

OOC: First of all, I am seeking the kindness and understanding of the WA Royalist Party for not presenting this proposal within the Party before bringing the matter to the floor, due to the reasons that all the process that this proposal will undergo or the "fine tuning" within the Party could simply be done within the Parliament altogether with the rest of other Members of the Parliament and to simplify revisions and gathering amendments.

IC: Eurussia, as a responsible member of the international community, seeks to revise an existing international law (regional law) currently enforced in the world in which our government actively pushed through during its previous passage within the international legislature. And as our nation have experienced being involved in various cases before the WA Court of Justice, gladly resulting all in our favor, and even have invoked this particular international legislation for the protection of our sovereign rights as a nation.

Section 1
If a state charges the regional government or any of its laws thereof, the country holding the presidency of the region shall be automatically compelled to stand in court and the case will proceed whether any of the two parties participate or not.

But if a state charges another state, both must agree to be arbitrated and the court cannot force any state to participate or else the case will never push through.

Hence, we are extremely concerned with a "loophole", as per with our consultations with the Eurasian Government, which concurrently have a seat in the WA Court of Justice, that involves Section 1 of the Judicial Protocol Act whereby it simply protects and recognizes the rights of the sovereign states but at the same time could be possibly abused to the detriment of an aggrieved party, the tribunal itself, and the world as well, if a situation arises. Thus, we wish to strengthen the powers of our good tribunal and proposes the following changes only to Section 1 & 9 of the Judicial Protocol Act.

REVISED JUDICIAL PROTOCOL ACT

Authored by the Empire of Great Eurussia

Member of the World Alliance Royalist Party

Section 1

If a state charges the WA Council, the WA Parliament, or any duly authorized international organization/s and/or any of its laws, the country holding the leadership of that concerned institution shall be compelled to stand in court as a representative and the case will proceed whether any of the two parties participate or not.

If a state charges another state, both parties must agree to be arbitrated before the case proceeds. But if any of the party refuses and if the court finds the complaint to possess probable cause containing obvious violations to the WA Constitution or any legally enforced agreement, the case shall proceed regardless of the refusal.

Section 2

Only the parties involved in a case can present and debate with each other and no one else unless otherwise both parties agree to invite a third party to join.

Section 3

It is only the head of the court can speak in behalf of the entire court provided that they all agree privately but if there is none, it is up to the court who will lead in a proceedings.

Section 4

Any member of the court has no right, if he wish to destroy his credibility, to declare or state his opinions in a proceeding. But he can always ask any party any question.

Section 5

It is always the prosecuting party, the one who started the charges, who should present all his arguments and evidences first. After such the defending party do its part. From then they could debate with each other until their exhaustion.

Section 6

Before the court decides on a case, the presiding justice must first ask all parties if they are done presenting all their arguments and their evidences. The prosecuting must reply first and the defending party follows. After this, no one else can present their side anymore.

If so, the members of the court can now start reviewing everything and each of them can now publicly state their opinion and reasons for reaching whatever their decision.

Section 7

When deciding on a case, the presiding justice is the last to issue his decision and summarize all the other justices opinions, from there a decision is now reached.

From here, any party has the right to file a motion for consideration. One move for the prosecuting party and one move for the defending party, whichever which. Any motion must be heard by the court and open the floor again for arguments.

Section 8

During a motion for reconsideration, all parties will be asked if they are done presenting all their arguments and evidences. If so, the court can now issue their decision again and the presiding justice will be the last to do so and summarize everything.

In this level of the case, the decision is final and executory.

Section 9

If a case reaches a verdict, with all parties actively engaged, the court may authorize any duly authorized international organization/s, created by international law, for the attainment of the objectives of the final and executory verdict.

https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t282-judicial-protocol-act#8312

Ireland Sat Feb 22, 2014 3:53 pm

I vote yes.

Federation of Antanares Sat Feb 22, 2014 11:11 pm

We are now in an official debating period, which will end at 0:00 (GMT) on the 25th of February. After which, a three day voting period will begin, and will end at 0:00 (GMT) on the 28th of the same month.

I invite everyone to not express every vote before the start of the voting period, thanks.

Shirouma Sun Feb 23, 2014 1:28 am

I was thinking, since my case against Farshonia is pending, will this law affect it? Cuz I personally think that since the law was proposed after the case was started, it shouldn't apply to the case.

New Tarajan Sun Feb 23, 2014 2:11 am

Shirouma wrote:I was thinking, since my case against Farshonia is pending, will this law affect it? Cuz I personally think that since the law was proposed after the case was started, it shouldn't apply to the case.

I believe so. It's a fundamental juridical principle: laws have not a retroactive effect. Thus, I guess your trial would be safe, but it would be better to ask to the Court.

Now, concerning the bill itself: leaving apart the problem about our Party procedures, which I already told about in front of the WARP, let's focus on the text.
I believe here we have some problems, indeed: above all, there's no clear definition of what is an "obvious violation of the WA Constitution". This would give to the Court a large spectrum of discretion about the single case and, consequently, on the application of Section 9 as modified by this draft, which could lead to a strumentalization of the CoJ itself. I believe it is necessary to correct this point.

Great Eurussia Sun Feb 23, 2014 12:08 pm

Shirouma wrote:I was thinking, since my case against Farshonia is pending, will this law affect it? Cuz I personally think that since the law was proposed after the case was started, it shouldn't apply to the case.

Technically, I believe thay this will never affect your case, if this law passes in the middle of your trial. But if you wish to, I could AMEND it and add a provision about pending cases. Just to be sure!

Europe and Asia Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:00 pm

I can confirm the passage of this law will not retroactively affect Shirouma's case.

Great Eurussia Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:13 pm

Europe and Asia wrote:I can confirm the passage of this law will not retroactively affect Shirouma's case.

Thanks Chief Justice!

Marquette (of Pacific) Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:08 am

Great Eurussia wrote:
Europe and Asia wrote:I can confirm the passage of this law will not retroactively affect Shirouma's case.

Thanks Chief Justice!

While I like the bill and I can definitely see myself voting in favor of it, New Tarajan brought up a good point I'd like to see you address. Namely, Section 1 with the clause regarding an "obvious violation of the WA constitution."

Ireland Mon Feb 24, 2014 5:21 am

I am in full support of this bill

Husqvarnia Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:18 am

Ireland Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:23 am

Husqvarnia wrote:I vote IN FAVOUR

Its not voting time yet

Arveyres Mon Feb 24, 2014 9:35 am

Great Empire of Ireland wrote:
Husqvarnia wrote:I vote IN FAVOUR
Its not voting time yet

Check your first post on this thread; it's not voting time yet.

Ireland Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:49 am

Arveyres wrote:
Great Empire of Ireland wrote:
Husqvarnia wrote:I vote IN FAVOUR
Its not voting time yet
Check your first post on this thread; it's not voting time yet.

I know what I posted and it was a simple mistake so just shut it.

Arveyres Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:43 pm

Great Empire of Ireland wrote:
Arveyres wrote:
Great Empire of Ireland wrote:
Husqvarnia wrote:I vote IN FAVOUR
Its not voting time yet
Check your first post on this thread; it's not voting time yet.
I know what I posted and it was a simple mistake so just shut it.

No need to get cantankerous :-)

Ireland Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:25 pm

Arveyres wrote:
Great Empire of Ireland wrote:
Arveyres wrote:
Great Empire of Ireland wrote:
Husqvarnia wrote:I vote IN FAVOUR
Its not voting time yet
Check your first post on this thread; it's not voting time yet.
I know what I posted and it was a simple mistake so just shut it.
No need to get cantankerous :-)

Not sure what that is but ok

Novo Canuckia Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:23 pm

Great Empire of Ireland wrote:
Arveyres wrote:
Great Empire of Ireland wrote:
Arveyres wrote:
Great Empire of Ireland wrote:
Husqvarnia wrote:I vote IN FAVOUR
Its not voting time yet
Check your first post on this thread; it's not voting time yet.
I know what I posted and it was a simple mistake so just shut it.
No need to get cantankerous :-)
Not sure what that is but ok

"Cantankerous; Adjective: Bad-tempered and argumentative; Disagreeable"

And this is why I always have a dictionary withing arms reach. (To post definitions, not to actually look up words.)

Novo Canuckia Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:10 pm

Oh, and Novo Canuckia votes FOR the proposed amendment.

Great Eurussia Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:40 pm

Novo Canuckia wrote:Oh, and Novo Canuckia votes FOR the proposed amendment.

Is there an amendment?

New Tarajan Thu Feb 27, 2014 8:49 pm

Not yet. But New Tarajan and Marquette are still awaiting for a response about the point we have addressed before (namely: Section 1, and the vague definition of "clear violation of WA Constitution", which, in our opinion, gives to the Court to much discretional power on the issue).

About the same point, we believe that this bill, as it has been proposed, needs to be integrated with an Annex.
Let me specify.
The Annex will be a full and clear explanation of the Sovereign Rights, as listed by the Constitution. Why? Because this way their content will be as clear as possible, avoiding their use as "weapons" during trial and processes, and thus helping also the Court (and the International Community) to understand if a particular case constitutes really a "clear violation" of the Constitution itself.

Ireland Thu Feb 27, 2014 8:53 pm

Ireland votes FOR this proposal

Great Eurussia Thu Feb 27, 2014 8:54 pm

New Tarajan wrote:Not yet. But New Tarajan and Marquette are still awaiting for a response about the point we have addressed before (namely: Section 1, and the vague definition of "clear violation of WA Constitution", which, in our opinion, gives to the Court to much discretional power on the issue).

About the same point, we believe that this bill, as it has been proposed, needs to be integrated with an Annex.
Let me specify.
The Annex will be a full and clear explanation of the Sovereign Rights, as listed by the Constitution. Why? Because this way their content will be as clear as possible, avoiding their use as "weapons" during trial and processes, and thus helping also the Court (and the International Community) to understand if a particular case constitutes really a "clear violation" of the Constitution itself.

Just state the revisions and amendments to the law. There is no need for an annex or whatever you call it as it could simply be incorporated into the legislation so it could be uniformly arranged in a single law. Just show those amendments both of you are talking about so as not to waste time and provide efficiency.

New Tarajan Thu Feb 27, 2014 8:58 pm

The need for an Annex (or, if you prefer to call, amendment) is more than necessary, as we have already explained.
Such a work will require some time. We will work on it as soon as possible.
And, please, refrain from saying that we are wasting time: this is a Parliament, and our duty here is to discuss the drafts proposed and eventually to modify them. This is not wasting time, this is doing our job.

Also, we have another problem here, which is Section 9: indeed, the statement is vague in this case too. We are talking about national sovereignty, there, and even if we are sure that a verdict must be respected, to authorize in such a way an international intervention against a country would be unresponsible and dangerous.
For this reason, we wish to propose some changes to Section 9: first of all, the intervention must be done in respect of International Law and the WA Constitution. Secondly: before requesting an intervention, the CoJ, in front of the clear refusal of one of the parties to accomplish with what is requested, call on the Council intervention, which issues a warning to the party responsible for the violation. Only in case such a behavior continues, then the CoJ (with the approval of the Council) can proceed with the intervention.

Great Eurussia Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:07 pm

Spoiler:

There is another problem. Isn't the Constitution clear that the Parliament and Council is independent from the Court? And if the Court will still seek the consent of the Council, does it infringes that independence?
And also, we see no problem having the Court to call for an intervention, besides, the international organizations will be the ones to perform such intervention, if any. As these organizations are all just performing the mandates of either the Council or the Court which forms part of the WA Government.

New Tarajan Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:24 pm

Yes, the Court is independent from the other bodies of the WA Government. But here we are not questioning the judgement powers of the Court: instead, we are talking about its authority to use the WA Organizations to perform interventions which, for their own nature, infringe national sovereignty.
I hope you will understand the seriousness of such a point.
We need to be sure that such interventions will be performed only as last chance, and in the full respect of the International Law and the WA Constitution and, moreover, with the full understanding of the Community (which is not so automatically as you may believe).
The Council will be the "link" between the judiciary decision (Court) and the executory intervention (the Organizations). This way also we will make it far more efficient: instead of asking to all members of an organization to vote about the intervention, it will be the Council to decide.

Sponsored content

(Passed) Revised Judicial Protocol Act

(Passed) Revised Judicial Protocol Act

Re: (Passed) Revised Judicial Protocol Act

Re: (Passed) Revised Judicial Protocol Act

Re: (Passed) Revised Judicial Protocol Act

Re: (Passed) Revised Judicial Protocol Act

Re: (Passed) Revised Judicial Protocol Act

Re: (Passed) Revised Judicial Protocol Act

Re: (Passed) Revised Judicial Protocol Act

Re: (Passed) Revised Judicial Protocol Act

Re: (Passed) Revised Judicial Protocol Act

Re: (Passed) Revised Judicial Protocol Act

Re: (Passed) Revised Judicial Protocol Act

Re: (Passed) Revised Judicial Protocol Act

Re: (Passed) Revised Judicial Protocol Act

Re: (Passed) Revised Judicial Protocol Act

Re: (Passed) Revised Judicial Protocol Act

Re: (Passed) Revised Judicial Protocol Act

Re: (Passed) Revised Judicial Protocol Act

Re: (Passed) Revised Judicial Protocol Act

Re: (Passed) Revised Judicial Protocol Act

Re: (Passed) Revised Judicial Protocol Act

Re: (Passed) Revised Judicial Protocol Act

Re: (Passed) Revised Judicial Protocol Act

Re: (Passed) Revised Judicial Protocol Act

Re: (Passed) Revised Judicial Protocol Act

Re: (Passed) Revised Judicial Protocol Act